https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65170
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Feb 24 08:07:10 2015
New Revision: 220931
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220931&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR tree-optimization/65170
* wide-int.cc (wi::mul_internal): For t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #19
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65170
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dodji at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #20 from rguenther at suse dot de ---
On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
>
> Aldy Hernandez changed:
>
>What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65187
Bug ID: 65187
Summary: Bogus error with ASSOCIATE and deferred-length
CHARACTER
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63890
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rth at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #7 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 09:09:11 2015
New Revision: 220935
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220935&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2015-02-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.3
Known to fail|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65167
--- Comment #1 from Ilya Enkovich ---
For call arguments we usually store bounds passed in bounds tables and then
fill bounds passed in registers. But with -fschedule-insns we have order
changed and all hard registers are filled with values befo
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|REOPENED
Resolution|FIXED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65023
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65048
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
--- Comment #15 from Richard Biener ---
I'd also say that warnings for formats that do not have a signed form are
useless,
thus for %o, %x and %X. But I guess you beg to differ.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
--- Comment #16 from Marek Polacek ---
Ok, I can fix the integer constant case as well.
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #15)
> I'd also say that warnings for formats that do not have a signed form are
> useless,
> thus for %o, %x and %X
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
--- Comment #17 from Jakub Jelinek ---
IMHO the warning is completely useless, but perhaps some people disagree.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65040
--- Comment #18 from Richard Biener ---
And it was just mentioned that the diagnostic should print
[-Wformat-signedness]
not
[-Wformat=]
(or both)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65167
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65167
Uroš Bizjak changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65138
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dje at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61397
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65023
David Binderman changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
--- Comment #21 from Jakub Jelinek ---
So, what still needs to be done here? This certainly isn't a compile-time-hog
on the trunk and the testcase is optimized into return 0; as it should.
: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: jan.kratochvil at redhat dot com
Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
class C { public: void f() {} } c;
int main() { return c.f.a; }
-Wall
g++ (GCC) 5.0.0 20150224
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61021
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60851
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uros at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to fa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63958
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||doko at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #9 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45325
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
Known to w
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63888
--- Comment #39 from Yury Gribov ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #36)
> (In reply to Yury Gribov from comment #35)
> > (In reply to Kostya Serebryany from comment #34)
> > > Frankly, I am not at all motivated to do any significant sur
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56145
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61018
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65189
Bug ID: 65189
Summary: Malformed (C++) class-hierarchy dump on abstract class
(in comparission to GCC 4.6.x)
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Sev
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60315
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.9.0, 5.0
Assignee|unassigne
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65190
Bug ID: 65190
Summary: libreoffice build failure with lto and graphite flags
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compon
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015
--- Comment #27 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 11:27:43 2015
New Revision: 220938
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220938&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2015-02-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65015
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65186
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UN
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65178
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Depends on||63278
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biene
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65167
--- Comment #4 from Ilya Enkovich ---
ix86_function_arg_regno_p doesn't recognize bnd registers as args. Also
avoid_func_arg_motion doesn't work for BNDSTX because it is not a single set.
This patch works for reproducer:
diff --git a/gcc/conf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65191
Bug ID: 65191
Summary: keep interesting core files and remove others
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: enhancement
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65191
--- Comment #1 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Created attachment 34854
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34854&action=edit
Demonstrator patch
Run with f.i. gfortran.dg/block_6.f08 to see that the core is cleaned up.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65167
--- Comment #5 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Ilya Enkovich from comment #4)
> ix86_function_arg_regno_p doesn't recognize bnd registers as args. Also
> avoid_func_arg_motion doesn't work for BNDSTX because it is not a single
> set.
>
> Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65189
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65191
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
|--- |WORKSFORME
--- Comment #1 from Markus Trippelsdorf ---
Cannot reproduce with grahite enabled 4.9.3 20150224.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64950
vries at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65191
--- Comment #3 from vries at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #2)
> I don't see why the dejagnu or the testsuite should care. If dumping
> everything under core filename is not what you want, then perhaps use
> differen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64277
--- Comment #22 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 12:49:11 2015
New Revision: 220939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56273
--- Comment #24 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 12:49:11 2015
New Revision: 220939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59124
--- Comment #11 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 12:49:11 2015
New Revision: 220939
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220939&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56456
Bug 56456 depends on bug 56273, which changed state.
Bug 56273 Summary: [4.8 regression] Bogus -Warray-bounds warning
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56273
What|Removed |Added
--
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56273
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65150
--- Comment #13 from Martin Liška ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> On I also see
>
> FAIL: c-c++-common/attr-used.c -std=gnu++(11|14|98) scan-assembler
> function_declaration_before
>
> or
>
> FAIL: c-c++-common/attr-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65187
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60458
Dominique d'Humieres changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||burnus at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65150
--- Comment #14 from Iain Sandoe ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #13)
> (In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #8)
> > On I also see
> >
> > FAIL: c-c++-common/attr-used.c -std=gnu++(11|14|98) scan-assembler
> > function_dec
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6
Avi Kivity changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boger at us dot ibm.com
--- Com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64199
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 14:05:46 2015
New Revision: 220940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-12-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64495
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 14:05:46 2015
New Revision: 220940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-12-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64493
--- Comment #7 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 14:05:46 2015
New Revision: 220940
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220940&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-12-09
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64495
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64199
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64493
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56145
Mircea Namolaru changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mircea.namolaru at inria dot fr
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56145
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||5.0
Summary|[4.8/4.9/5 Regre
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65192
Bug ID: 65192
Summary: [avr-tiny] ICE in
tiny_valid_direct_memory_access_range
Product: gcc
Version: 5.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-checking
Se
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65188
Manuel López-Ibáñez changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65192
Georg-Johann Lay changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65149
--- Comment #2 from Alexey Lapshin ---
The similar test case for C does not fail. gcc aligns this 8-bytes structure at
8-bytes so inlined lock-free code is working correctly.
Another thing is that this bug exist on x86 also. lock free code on x8
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65193
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.8.4, 5.0
Target Milestone|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65193
Bug ID: 65193
Summary: [4.9 Regression] ICE: Segmentation fault with -g -flto
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.2
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Compo
nimized the testcase maybe more than appropriate, it was in fact:
class D { public: int a; } d;
class C { public: D &f() { return d; } } c;
int main() { return c.f.a; }
g++ (GCC) 5.0.0 20150224 (experimental)
---
10.C: In
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65150
--- Comment #15 from howarth at bromo dot med.uc.edu ---
(In reply to Iain Sandoe from comment #14)
> FWIW, LGTM (with suitable guards added to the tests for the target alias
> support).
> (I cannot officially approve of course ;) )
> ... if we
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64374
--- Comment #11 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 34855
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34855&action=edit
gcc5-pr64374.patch
Untested fix.
Unfortunately I really can't reproduce it now, so can't verify the patch.
Th
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65134
--- Comment #5 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
(In reply to Tatsushi Inagaki from comment #0)
> Created attachment 34813 [details]
> Example to reproduce the constructor problem
>
> Gccgo ignores a C-function with the "constructor" attribute in
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61591
Martin Jambor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65161
Yuri Rumyantsev changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ysrumyan at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62251
--- Comment #7 from dave.anglin at bell dot net ---
On 2015-02-21 1:56 PM, dave.anglin at bell dot net wrote:
> The current code now uses the libcall, _U_Qfsqrt, in libm.
The change from sqrtl to _U_Qfsqrt occurred in r214211:
2014-08-20 Joost V
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65161
--- Comment #3 from Yuri Rumyantsev ---
Created attachment 34856
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=34856&action=edit
possible patch
Add check on selective scheduling to not perform instruction reordering.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63844
--- Comment #19 from Richard Biener ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Tue Feb 24 15:09:00 2015
New Revision: 220941
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220941&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Richard Biener
Backport from mainline
2014-11-1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53947
Bug 53947 depends on bug 63844, which changed state.
Bug 63844 Summary: [4.8 Regression] open mp parallelization prevents
vectorization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63844
What|Removed |Added
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63844
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Known to work|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56145
--- Comment #16 from Mircea Namolaru ---
Right, the NULL check fixed this for previous versions of GCC.
For the current version, it works without these NULL checks (the NULL paths are
not followed). The relevant scop fields are always initialize
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #21 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 02/24/2015 12:39 AM, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:
> But yes, we have multiple such assignments to 'this' at the (possible
> assembler) location of a single statement which of course doesn't help.
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #21)
> Let me see if I understood this correctly. We need a DSE/DCE pass right
> before var-tracking that would eliminate the redundant `this' statements
> right b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65194
Bug ID: 65194
Summary: Compiler warns of maybe-uninitialized
Product: gcc
Version: 4.9.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #11 from Andrew Stubbs ---
The compiler has constructed the loop such that it reads like this:
f = 0;
tmp = 0;
do {
B[f] = tmp | A[f + 1];
if (f + 1 == 8)
break;
if (f + 1 > 0)
tmp = A[f];
if (f + 1 == 7) {
B[f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65171
Bill Schmidt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #23 from Aldy Hernandez ---
On 02/24/2015 07:53 AM, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
>
> --- Comment #22 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> (In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #21)
>> Le
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65090
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58315
--- Comment #24 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Aldy Hernandez from comment #23)
> Absolutely, _all_ of them are different for that matter. I think what
> Richi was saying was that we could do a DSE type pass but take
> intervening stores
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=62259
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||alexey.lapshin at oracle dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65149
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64625
--- Comment #14 from Thomas Schwinge ---
Author: tschwinge
Date: Tue Feb 24 17:00:36 2015
New Revision: 220944
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220944&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR libgomp/64625] Remove __OFFLOAD_TABLE__ variable/formal paramet
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64999
--- Comment #25 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
To which code in libgcc are you referring? I don't see it.
Our goal has to be for runtime.Callers to return the same sort of values in
gccgo as it does in gc. That means that your change to
go/runtime/
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65134
--- Comment #6 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
No, I believe the problem is different. The gccgo build process stores objects
in an archive, and relies on the system linker to pull in those objects.
However, at least on ELF-based systems like GNU/Lin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64491
--- Comment #12 from Jakub Jelinek ---
One possibility is just not to warn at all about loops with multiple exits,
because for those you have no guarantee the iteration that triggers undefined
behavior will be ever encountered.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65195
Bug ID: 65195
Summary: [5.0][C++14]Variable template cannot be used as a
function
Product: gcc
Version: unknown
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
P
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65123
--- Comment #2 from Vladimir Makarov ---
Author: vmakarov
Date: Tue Feb 24 18:11:38 2015
New Revision: 220946
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=220946&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2015-02-24 Vladimir Makarov
PR rtl-optimization/65123
*
1 - 100 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
